Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Duffenais
A-551-92
Létourneau J.A.
23/4/93
4 pp.
Application to review and set aside Umpire's decision dismissing appeal from Board of Referees -- Respondent's employment reduced from full-time to two days and later to one day per week -- To commence working one day per week on February 18 -- Filed claim for unemployment insurance benefits on February 13 -- Canada Employment and Immigration Commission employee advising could work any day between Monday and Friday without prejudicing entitlement to benefits -- Subsequently told ineligible to claim benefits as no interruption of earnings -- Unemployment Insurance Act, s. 6(2) and Unemployment Insurance Regulations, s. 37(1) providing interruption of earnings occurring when employee laid off, and seven or more consecutive days during which no work performed for that employer and no earnings arising from that employment -- Decision successfully appealed to Board of Referees -- In dismissing appeal therefrom Umpire applying by analogy "good cause" test found in s. 9(4) -- Also distinguished Granger v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1986] 3 F.C. 70 (C.A.) -- Application allowed -- Granger indistinguishable -- Respondent acted upon erroneous interpretation of law by Commission's agent resulting in no interrruption of earnings as required by Act and Regulations to qualify for benefits -- That respondent did what reasonable person would have done to inquire as to rights and obligations under Act irrelevant in context of what constitutes interruption of earnings -- Definition of "interruption of earnings" in s. 37(1) allowing for no exception or justification relating to claimant's behaviour, unlike s. 9(4) -- Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. U-1, ss. 6(2) (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 40, s. 5), 9(4) (as am. idem., s. 7) -- Unemployment Insurance Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1576, s. 37 (as am. by SOR/82-778, s. 1).